Todd admits Fallout 4's Dialogue didn't work, you'll never guess what happened next

This all translate to me as, "There's still too much of people who've played enough video games and have played the previous entry to form a valid opinion and constructive criticism that can endanger our money-making agenda, which means next time we will try even harder to attract people who have never played video games in their whole life and there's so many of them!"

Fucking hell, even looking at E3, most of the games showcased aimed at giving a 'cinematic' impression, completely go against what video games supposed to be. I won't be surprised if the TES VI and their next Fallout game strive on being cinematic, since their target audience are people who have never played video games their entire life and those kind of people obviously thought good games are ones that's like a movie. Defending voiced protagonist? Obviously the guy never played Half-Life series and just about every good games in existence that used silent protagonist, or even true cRPGs in general.
 
Last edited:
Walpknut said:
Try new things = Ape every trend that's popular on overrated games.

That's how we ended up with Falloutcrafterlands Effect.
Click to expand...
Don't you mean Gorilla every trend?
maxresdefault.jpg


:bow:
 
Mr_Beardman said:
That did strike me as odd about E3.
Click to expand...
The only ones left quite an impression are Arkane's Dishonored 2, where it's legit gameplay footage with UI in action and actually doesn't seem like they are going for giving 'cinematic' feel. There's been lots of talk about how Sony won E3 yet again, since it's all gameplay footage after gameplay footage yet even then they STILL apparently went for giving cinematic feelings too. Heck, even Tyranny doesn't show much gameplay footage with UI in action, and this is getting criticized heavily over there in the Codex. You're showcasing video games, people! Show gameplay or GTFO!

As for Bethesda, I couldn't care less of Skyrim Remastered, but yet again they didn't showcased any kind of gameplay footage involving their next batch of DLC, probably because people are going to notice they actually took a mod instead of giving something new.
 
"Cinematiic elements" can enrich a game's experience.... mostly because those "Cinematic" elements are just regular old Visual Composition, for a while the "Cinematic Aspects" were praised for what they brought to gaming with MGS, Zelda and such, nowadays they turned th term into "Mostly on rails because on movies you just watch".
I don't know what's worse, this or the "Open sandbox with repetitive "activities" games with zero reactivity" craze that is basically ever major release now.
 
I don't really get why any of you give a shit about E3 in the first place. It's been a shit-show for years now so it continuing to be shit ain't all that surprising to me. I've moved on from triple-A games anyway. Too overpriced, too streamlined, too generic and far too many IP's get ruined in that machine. I just stick to indie titles and kickstarter cRPG's. Only E3-portion I watched was the Fallout-bit by Bethesda so I could nitpick everything cause it amuses me. So E3 is now full of "cinematics", hasn't it always been that? Even gameplay portions are usually so fucking staged that they've practically been "cinematic" showings.
 
I bristle at the word 'cinematic'.

Video games are a Kinesthetic medium, not a passive visual one. You're not adding anything by putting grease on your cutscene lens and adding shake to the camera because J.J. Abrams did it and he seems like a pretty smart guy, or interrupting the flow of gameplay with TV live action episodes for the 'complete media experience' like Quantum Break.

But you have all these Hollywood executives jumping over to executive positions in these AAA companies because you'd have to be in near complete denial to not recognize the TV entertainment industry is a sinking ship, and they still want the sized bonuses they're accustomed to in the next five years. But they even haven't gotten the most basic f*&^in' memo about the core basics of what games even are. And even worse, they refuse to try and learn.

Valve. Portal. You poke the environment with portals until the environment yields a solution as a reaction. Kinesthetic learning at it's most simple and refined. That's all a video game needs to be. Those poor blind souls who insist they know what's best for gaming because they've produced two seasons of Two and a Half Men and did coke with Charlie Sheen once make it so much harder for themselves then it has to be.
 
Last edited:
Deeves said:
I bristle at the word 'cinematic'.

Video games are a Kinesthetic medium, not a passive visual one. You're not adding anything by putting grease on your cutscene lens and adding shake to the camera because J.J. Abrams did it and he seems like a pretty smart guy, or interrupting the flow of gameplay with TV live action episodes for the 'complete media experience' like Quantum Break.

But you have all these Hollywood executives jumping over to executive positions in these AAA companies because you'd have to be in near complete denial to not recognize the TV entertainment industry is a sinking ship, and they still want the sized bonuses they're accustomed to in the next five years. But they even haven't gotten the most basic f*&^in' memo about the core basics of what game even are. And even worse, they refuse to try and learn.

Valve. Portal. You poke the environment with portals until the environment yields a solution as a reaction. Kinesthetic learning at it's most simple and refined. That's all a video game needs to be. Those poor blind souls who insist they know what's best for gaming because they've produced two seasons of Two and a Half Men and did coke with Charlie Sheen once make it so much harder for themselves then it has to be.
Click to expand...
Calling a game with no interactivity 'a cinematic experience' is like calling a video of a guy reading a book out loud 'a literary experience'.
 
From what I gather, a lot of people in the Games Industry come from people who wanted to work in film (and that includes me, I originally wanted to become a film director but thought Game Development would be a lot more fun and it would be easier to tell new stories and ideas).
And I had to sound like I'm kissing his ass, the only person who I felt managed to mix both the Cinematic Experience and the Gameplay element well is Kojima, and I understand there may be some hate because essentially, every game is trying to rip him off nowadays.
But look at things like the Psycho Mantis boss battle, or The End boss battle.
Both are considered to be some of the best bosses in gaming due to them requiring the player to think outside the box. They don't just tell you (well, they do if you're shit) what to do, you have to work it out for yourself.
But a lot of developers just feel the need to tell a story first, and make a game second.

I think the easiest way to look at RPGs is that by nature, they should be more episodic.
The difference between Episodic and Cinematic is how they are presented. Cinematic tells a story through visuals, and it's the games story that is being told, not the player's while Episodic has a number of small stories which may connect together to tell a larger story. It's essentially the player's story.
When I read how Fallout 4 is great because it takes a more Cinematic approach, I just think what makes an RPG has been lost on these companies. RPGs aren't meant to be Cinematic, they have to tell a story that the Player wants to tell.

And I wouldn't mind Cinematic games so much as long as they don't railroad the player.
The COD games just hold your hand throughout the course of the Campaign, rarely does it let you think for yourself.
Final Fantasy XIII tried this, luckily it seems they've learned from their mistakes as FFXV looks like it's going to be a massive improvement and I personally can't wait for release.

I don't cringe as much as some people when I hear the word Cinematic, as long as the Developer knows how to have a mixture of both, but if it's too one sided (Like what the Order 1886 was to most people) then you've failed at making a Game.
 
lol deus ex 1 and hr were filled with cinematic dialogue and cutscene, still gives the nice atmospheric feel of the world
 
Millim said:
From what I gather, a lot of people in the Games Industry come from people who wanted to work in film (and that includes me, I originally wanted to become a film director but thought Game Development would be a lot more fun and it would be easier to tell new stories and ideas).
And I had to sound like I'm kissing his ass, the only person who I felt managed to mix both the Cinematic Experience and the Gameplay element well is Kojima, and I understand there may be some hate because essentially, every game is trying to rip him off nowadays.
But look at things like the Psycho Mantis boss battle, or The End boss battle.
Both are considered to be some of the best bosses in gaming due to them requiring the player to think outside the box. They don't just tell you (well, they do if you're shit) what to do, you have to work it out for yourself.
But a lot of developers just feel the need to tell a story first, and make a game second.

I think the easiest way to look at RPGs is that by nature, they should be more episodic.
The difference between Episodic and Cinematic is how they are presented. Cinematic tells a story through visuals, and it's the games story that is being told, not the player's while Episodic has a number of small stories which may connect together to tell a larger story. It's essentially the player's story.
When I read how Fallout 4 is great because it takes a more Cinematic approach, I just think what makes an RPG has been lost on these companies. RPGs aren't meant to be Cinematic, they have to tell a story that the Player wants to tell.

And I wouldn't mind Cinematic games so much as long as they don't railroad the player.
The COD games just hold your hand throughout the course of the Campaign, rarely does it let you think for yourself.
Final Fantasy XIII tried this, luckily it seems they've learned from their mistakes as FFXV looks like it's going to be a massive improvement and I personally can't wait for release.

I don't cringe as much as some people when I hear the word Cinematic, as long as the Developer knows how to have a mixture of both, but if it's too one sided (Like what the Order 1886 was to most people) then you've failed at making a Game.
Click to expand...
you gotta to admit that most people uses games like uncharted to make excuse for cinematic gaming
 
I've not really played Uncharted.
I have got Last of Us and I don't think it's too bad.
I can see why it got a following and while it's not the sort of game I want to make, it does have its genially good moments.
It seems a lot of people focused way too much on the Cinematics instead of the stealth system, which is pretty decent and adds some tension to the game.
 
I loved uncharted and the last of us. I believe their biggest problems (especially in the case of the last of us) is their lack of replay value.
 
I do plan on picking up Uncharted on PS4, I was planning to get them on PS3 but held off until the remasters came out.
 
Games are no longer made by people who play video games. They're made by marketing executives who dictate what is "hot" right now and so we end up with "cinematic" movies instead of interactive art.

And the forced drama behind the Sole Survivor's voice acting ("WHAR SHAUN WHAR?") and failed cinematic cutscenes during dialogue (where you end up staring at a Brahmin butt a lot of the time) are just dumb. Those decisions were probably made to make the game more *cinematic* and they ended up being worse than the dialogue in all previous games including 1 and 2.

It's so bad that I actually have to take Mr. Hines' advice and "just walk away" from dialogue. In a Fallout game.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top